The Effect of Interactional Fairness on the Performance of Cross‐Functional Product Development Teams: A Multilevel Mediated Model*
Abstract
Cross‐functional product development teams (CFPDTs) are receiving increasing attention as a fundamental mechanism for achieving greater interfunctional integration in the product development process. However, little is known about how team members' interactional fairness perception—fairness perception based on the quality of interpersonal treatment received from the project manager during the new product development process—affects cross‐functional communication and the performance of CFPDTs. This study examines the effects of interactional fairness on both team members' performance and team performance as a whole. It was predicted that interactional fairness in CFPDTs would significantly affect team members' task performance, both task‐ and person‐focused interpersonal citizenship behaviors, as well as team performance. Additionally, commitment would partially mediate the effects of interactional fairness on these performance outcomes. Analyzing survey responses from two student samples of CFPDTs with hierarchical linear modeling techniques, it was demonstrated that team members' task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, and team performance are enhanced when team members are dedicated to both the team and the project, and such dedication is fostered when project managers are fair to team members in an interpersonal way.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Use of a convenience sample of students is a limitation in terms of practical implications.
“Use of a convenience sample of students could be another limitation in terms of practical implications, even though student teams are known to provide useful insights into the dynamics of team work and creativity (Chiocchio & Essiembre, 2009;Qiu et al., 2009).”
From Antecedents of Team Creativity: An Examination of Team Emotional Intelligence, Team Trust and Collaborative Culture (2010) · cites this paper as Qiu et al., 2009
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barczak, G., Lassk, F., & Mulki, J. (2010) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00574.x · Cited by 479 · see citing works
- Authors
- Qiu, T., Qualls, W., Bohlmann, J., & Rupp, D. E.
- Affiliations
- California State University, Long Beach (US)
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- North Carolina State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Qiu, Tianjiao
- Venue
- Journal of Product Innovation Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-01-28
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 173-187
- ISSN
- 0737-6782 (ISSN-L)
- 1540-5885
- OpenAlex
- W2010744910
- Cited by
- 54
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 4.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Product Innovation Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
- Keywords
- interactional justice, team performance, task performance, interpersonal citizenship behavior, organizational commitment, project managers, new product development, interfunctional integration, cross-functional communication, perceived fairness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review